Wednesday, June 08, 2005


From the Washington Post: Liberals Rethinking Filibuster Deal

Are liberals serious when they say they didn't realize how stupid this "compromise" was when they entered into it? "We'll let these horrible judges go to vote, and we'll promise not filibuster others unless we really, really have to." What the hell did that actually do?

Okay, it "saved" the filibuster as a procedural mechanism. Whoop de twang. Even conservatives were against the nuclear option to begin with, so it's somewhat unclear whether that would have passed anyway.

But what did Democrats get in return? Three godawful judges will now get to sit for lifetime appointments on three different courts of appeals. Someone commented on another blog I read (I forget who -- sorry!) that having Democrats voluntarily retreat from using the filibuster on these judges was in some worse than having the option taken away from them: At least in the latter instance the Dems would have gone down fighting.

And let's not forget that when Republicans controlled the Senate during part Clinton's presidency, a shocking number of judicial nominees were withheld from "up-or-down" votes because their names simply weren't released from the committee! Republicans currently clamoring about unfair it is that Democrats dare hold up Bush appointees are ignoring their own sad contribution to the deteriorated state of judicial nominations.

Aargh, this stuff just makes my blood boil.


Meanwhile, the Post also had this great editorial yesterday highlighting the Republican hypocrisy of demanding "up-or-down" votes on judicial nominees while one lone Republican senator has successfully prevented a vote on the confirmation of W.'s nomination of Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.


Okay, this wasn't a terribly well-thought out or drafted post. But aren't you glad it pushes the other one from today just that much further down?

No comments: